Why do 2.7 cranks break?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazzaTD5

Also the guy in the video reckons service good or bad has nothing to do with it.
I think thats bull though, Ive got customers with D4 3.0lt with over 200K that have had good servicing and going faultless. I mean good as in every 10K servicing.

---

deleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rar110

There was a late D4 on here that failed after the 1st service on a HW run. They seem to fail at anytime during the engine life.

---

You’re conflating two issues. Late D4 is the common 3L engine issue. The 2.7 in the D4 never suffered crank failure issues or tensioner issues

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoJeffster

You’re conflating two issues. Late D4 is the common 3L engine issue. The 2.7 in the D4 never suffered crank failure issues or tensioner issues

---

thanks fixed to avoid confusing issue.

I often wonder if these failures are due to people remapping and chipping there engines for more power .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fatso

I often wonder if these failures are due to people remapping and chipping there engines for more power .

---

Not likely considering the engine was available in Jags as a twin turbo with more power and torque and they did not seem to suffer crank failures.

How does the 3.0 get the extra capacity (assuming it's the same base engine)? Is it bored, stroked, combo thereof?

And is the crank the same part number on both? (Guess not if it's stroked)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fatso

I often wonder if these failures are due to people remapping and chipping there engines for more power .

---

Not many around tuned or chipped.

Of the few that were,depending on tuner,some ocasionally cracked exhaust manifolds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skidrov

How does the 3.0 get the extra capacity (assuming it's the same base engine)? Is it bored, stroked, combo thereof?

And is the crank the same part number on both? (Guess not if it's stroked)

---

Both -
2.7 bore x stroke 81 mm × 88 mm
3.0 bore x stroke 84 mm × 90 mm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shanegtr

Both -
2.7 bore x stroke 81 mm × 88 mm
3.0 bore x stroke 84 mm × 90 mm

---

A poofteenth difference considering the massive power difference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PerthDisco

A poofteenth difference considering the massive power difference

---

An 11% capacity increase with a 28% power increase. Presume sequential turbo configuration allows for more boost via the secondary turbo/possibly larger secondary turbo that would cause lag in the 2.7 single turbo configuration. Plus the marketing department detuning the 2.7 to sell more higher spec models.